Dmytro wrote:Ven. Thanissaro doesn't ever criticise other teachers personally, what he adresses is the unfortunate wording that may be confusing and misguiding.

Well, given what I saw as misleading and selective quoting of other teachers in that book, I will attempt to stick to my policy of simply ignoring his criticisms, and concentrating on the interesting parts of his writing.

From a vipassana perspective, when you say "bare attention", what does "bare" refer to? ie: bare of what?

Ven Thanissaro seems to imply that bare represents unconditioned, but I have a feeling this is not the intention of vipassana teachers. ...

Hi all,

I just want to refresh this question as it was a serious inquiry. I have an impression of what bare attention is bare of, but only a loose one based on some writings of Bhante G and Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote earlier in this thread. A more direct answer from a vipassana adherent would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I really need to be asking a ten-day Goenka retreat? Maybe, but that will have to wait. A text answer will have to suffice for now.

I just ended the lecture of the book.I think that the book is very interesting, an honest contribution to the Dhamma.The mindfulness as explained by Thanissaro is illuminating. I recommend the lecture of this book. Annino

From a vipassana perspective, when you say "bare attention", what does "bare" refer to? ie: bare of what?

Ven Thanissaro seems to imply that bare represents unconditioned, but I have a feeling this is not the intention of vipassana teachers. ...

Hi all,

I just want to refresh this question as it was a serious inquiry. I have an impression of what bare attention is bare of, but only a loose one based on some writings of Bhante G and Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote earlier in this thread. A more direct answer from a vipassana adherent would be greatly appreciated. Maybe I really need to be asking a ten-day Goenka retreat? Maybe, but that will have to wait. A text answer will have to suffice for now.

Thanks,Scott

It's interesting, i don't think there is actually any such thing as bare vs. appropriate attention. There is the act of observance which carries with it no intention to change, and then there are thoughts and intentions which may or may not come after the act of observance. Bare attention just means attention. It's bare of attempting to change anything, so in other words it is only paying attention and then not moving on to try control what you are paying attention to.

Dear All,I started the second reading of the book. I need three times canonical mental apprehension (three readings). I need to develop “skillful instances of attention and consciousness” to understand this book. This is not easy.

I don't really have a position on the book, but this is definitely where the accusation comes from. It's worth the read.

I know MLFU is where most point to. I'd read it long before I heard the accusation, and have returned to it several times since looking for something to tie the accusation to, but to no avail. And in the context of his public body of work, it makes absolutely no sense. He's clearly aligned with the Buddha on all forms of eternalism. As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

danieLion wrote: As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

Since Ven Thanissaro is quite clear that he disgrees with other interpretations in a number of areas, it is no surprise that a number of other interpreters disagree with him. It's a stretch to call that a conspiracy.

Ven Thanissaro makes some interesting points regarding how to make use the the "not-self" teachings. Some possible objections to his interpretation have been discussed in the threads I linked to above. Robert and others have given some thought to the matter recently in the thread: NO selfhttp://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=14502

12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.

danieLion wrote: As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

I don't give a rat's patootie about Ven Thanisarro one way or another, but to call individuals who have carefully thought out disagreements with Ven T "propagandists" does not really do your argument any favors.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

danieLion wrote: As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

Since Ven Thanissaro is quite clear that he disgrees with other interpretations in a number of areas, it is no surprise that a number of other interpreters disagree with him. It's a stretch to call that a conspiracy.

Ven Thanissaro makes some interesting points regarding how to make use the the "not-self" teachings. Some possible objections to his interpretation have been discussed in the threads I linked to above. Robert and others have given some thought to the matter recently in the thread: NO selfhttp://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=14502

12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.

Mike

Whether it's a conspiracy or not is irrelevant (IMO it's too out in the open to be such). What Thanissaro teaches about anatta is irrelevant (I don't study Thanissaro much anymore and this latest book is just a compilation of scattered teachings I've already digested or got indigestion from.). Whether or not Thanissaro actually told Dhammanando he believes in an eternal self is irrelevant. Whether the Buddha meant NO self or NOT self by anatta is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Buddha never came out and plainly said the self does not exist, and the one time (we know of) someone asked him if the self exists he refused to answer. What is relevant is that the texts are full of locutions (personal pronouns, etc...) where the existence of the self is taken for granted.

It makes very little difference if one believes and acts as if one has no self or if one acts and believes that the aggregates are not self because in the context of the whole Buddha Dhamma either view has path utility.

danieLion wrote: As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

I don't give a rat's patootie about Ven Thanisarro one way or another, but to call individuals who have carefully thought out disagreements with Ven T "propagandists" does not really do your argument any favors.

You're right. However, I wasn't referring to the careful ones and apologize if what I said implied I lump them together with the reckless ones.

danieLion wrote: As far as I can tell it was a nasty rumor started by Ven. Dhammanando and perpetuated by anti-Thanissaro propagandists here at Dhammawheel.

Repeat a lie often enough and it eventually becomes a truth--and all that....

I don't give a rat's patootie about Ven Thanisarro one way or another, but to call individuals who have carefully thought out disagreements with Ven T "propagandists" does not really do your argument any favors.

You're right. However, I wasn't referring to the careful ones and apologize if what I said implied I lump them together with the reckless ones.

Sometimes all this squabbling is a pain in the tookus and I can appreciate your impatience with it.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:I don't give a rat's patootie about Ven Thanisarro one way or another, but to call individuals who have carefully thought out disagreements with Ven T "propagandists" does not really do your argument any favors.

danieLion wrote:You're right. However, I wasn't referring to the careful ones and apologize if what I said implied I lump them together with the reckless ones.

tiltbillings wrote:Sometimes all this squabbling is a pain in the tookus and I can appreciate your impatience with it.

I'll always like you Tilt, no matter how impatient or squabbley either of us get, even towards each other.